MikeInIndy wrote: It's becoming clear that you guys are only interested in a numbers and technology game, rather than a realistic comparison of OUTPUT from these cameras. Last time I checked photography was about photos.

Everyone today appears to be off on this "just buy a killer FX camera" tangent instead of actually learning what photography is about, which is LIGHT.

This from the guy who says my D7000 needs twice the exposure time as my D600...

To get the same level of DR and noise from a sensor half as big you do need twice the exposure. The fact that you do not seem to grasp that very basic fact and at the same time rather pompously declare "photography is about LIGHT" makes it a bit hard to take your arguments seriously

Yes, photography is indeed about capturing light, the more the merrier, and one of the easiest ways of capturing more light is to use as large a capturing area as possible. Increasing the area mean you need less extreme lenses to achieve the same end result (a image of a given quality level).

If sensor area is - as you appear to claim - so irrelevant for DR, noise and other aspects of image quality, why do you even bother with DX and FX cameras instead of much smaller and ligher compact cameras?

-- hide signature --

I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every moment of it!By the way, film is not dead.It just smell funny